Retrieve federal funds rate data from the Alpha Vantage MCP Server for financial analysis and market insights.
Fetch federal funds rate
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "federal_funds_rate"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| interval | No | ||
| datatype | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Fetch' implies a read operation, but the description doesn't specify data sources, update frequency, error handling, or output format. This is inadequate for a tool with parameters and no output schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just three words, front-loading the essential action and resource. There's no wasted language, making it efficient for quick comprehension, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how parameters affect results, or behavioral traits, leaving the agent with insufficient information for reliable use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the two parameters ('interval' and 'datatype') are undocumented in the schema. The description adds no information about these parameters—not their purposes, allowed values, or defaults—failing to compensate for the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'fetch' and the resource 'federal funds rate', making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools that might also fetch economic indicators (like 'inflation' or 'unemployment'), so it doesn't reach the highest score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for economic data (e.g., 'inflation', 'unemployment', 'cpi'), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or comparisons, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.